Review: ‘The Americans’ – ‘The Oath’

A review of tonight’s “The Americans” coming up just as soon as I like the maze part and the eating without eating part…

“The thing you need to understand is we see what we need to see in people – things that aren’t really there.” -Elizabeth

Late in “The Oath,” Elizabeth has to watch her fake husband get into another fake marriage with a woman who thinks it’s real(*). It’s a sequence that’s at once hilarious – and not just because of Elizabeth and Grannie’s disguises – and sad, because Martha has no idea what’s really happening, while Elizabeth realizes that she and Philip never had a wedding, real or otherwise. (*) It’s a kind of inverse of the Jennings “marriage,” in that Martha believes she’s married but can’t tell anyone, where the world believes Elizabeth and Philip are married when only they and the KGB know they’re not.

But though Elizabeth suggests to Philip, in a conciliatory tone, that things might have gone very differently for them if they’d had to say those words, “The Oath” repeatedly suggests that vows are meaningless, and actions speak far more loudly.

Philip doesn’t love Martha. He’s using her fairly ruthlessly – albeit in a manner that now seems to make her life safer than ever (unless the KGB has designs on killing her parents and the clergyman who performed the ceremony) – and will discard her when the time she’s outlived her usefulness. The vows mean nothing to him.

Arkady, meanwhile, draws Nina in deeper by telling her about Directorate S, and having her recite the oath about being a worthy daughter of the homeland. But those words aren’t what stirs her to rebel against Stan. Rather, it’s the look on his face when she catches him off-guard with the question about Vlad’s murder – a pretty brilliant, subtle piece of spycraft worthy of more seasoned professionals like Mr. and Mrs. Jennings – that signals that her lover has been lying to her, perhaps about everything, and that her best course of action is to come clean and try to become a triple agent.

On the other hand, words – specifically, her preacher’s sermon about the Devil’s handmiadens – are very much what stir Viola to finally tell the authorities about the bug in Caspar Weinberger’s library. One might question why she waited this long, given that her son’s been out of danger for quite some time, but she still comes forward, and further signals to Stan (if not to all of his superiors) that they’re on the lookout for a male-female couple with a knack for disguises.

As the season’s penultimate chapter, “The Oath” offers an awful lot of plot movement: not only Nina and Viola’s turns, but one Soviet bug (in the clock) being discovered while another (in Gaad’s office) is planted, and a potentially huge new source of intel courtesy of gambling addict Sanford Prince – which Elizabeth, given her understandable paranoia about Grannie, suspects as a trap.

There’s so much in play right now, in fact, that I can’t imagine next week’s finale will resolve it all, unless Joe Weisberg and friends have a Zemeckis circa “Back to the Future”-like gift for tying every loose thread together at the end. But you have to think they were banking on a second season when this one started, and that the finale will be pointing the way towards year 2.

But after something of a dud last week, “The Oath” was pretty fabulous from start to finish – the sort of episode where my notes became littered with profanity as I realized the very risky place so many scenes (Arkady telling Nina about Directorate S, Philip’s proposal, Nina seducing Stan, Nina’s confession to Arkady) were heading. The stakes are incredibly high for a lot of characters right now, and while I expect the series to have a long and healthy life of exploring the ups and downs of Philip and Elizabeth’s relationship, I feel anyone not in the immediate Jennings family (and maybe Stan, but even he’s not entirely safe) could be in serious jeopardy in the finale. And yet all of this crazy plotting flowed directly out of what had been established about each character over the course of the season to date, rather than contrived craziness thrown in late to make us more excited for the finale.

I have no idea what’s going to happen next week. And I can’t wait to find out.

Some other thoughts:

* Okay, new FX web series spin-off, to be paired with “Wynnipeg” (the adventures of a perpetually surprised Wynn Duffy as he tries to establish a new criminal empire in Canada): “Arcade Ire,” in which we watch Claudia play classic video games of the early ’80s while she and Elizabeth insult each other.

* Then again, first we need to keep Margo Martindale a part of the show, since she signed to do a pilot for CBS (a still-untitled one created by Greg Garcia and starring Will Arnett). If that gets picked up, I believe it would have her in first position, contractually. I would not be happy to lose her from this show, even though a CBS sitcom surely pays her better than an FX drama will.

* How many takes do you figure were necessary for Matthew Rhys to throw the grape right into Holly Taylor’s mouth? Or was it all CGI? Either way, it’s nice to occasionally see characters on this show enjoying themselves, since it’s a fairly grim enterprise overall.

* Matthew Beeman’s band seems fairly terrible, but their new addition Sarah (or her guitar double, since the actress’s hands are out of frame) has some chops.

Join The Discussion: Log In With

Very good episode, got a kick out of Granny being his mother. Nina at the end made me just want to see next week right about now, can’t wait.

By: BigMacMile

04.26.2013 @ 6:36 AM

And that kid’s band was GOOD. Come on, Alan, give the young rockers some love. Though when that girl came in and played guitar I laughed out loud…so silly.

By: HISLOCAL

04.29.2013 @ 2:03 PM

She sure can shred for someone who doesn’t even have her own amp.

By: Jdog

04.25.2013 @ 3:09 AM

Matt Rhys = John Ritter

By: DonBoy

04.25.2013 @ 3:33 AM

Now that you say that, I can’t see him any other way. Side but related question: do they cheat and give “Clark” slightly fake teeth?

By: Sam Little

04.26.2013 @ 9:28 AM

Totally. And his new wife’s dad is swingin’ Larry from next door!

By: Athabasca

04.30.2013 @ 4:07 PM

Well, on the surface, there might be a resemblance, but MR shows a real menace under that angelic exterior. I find him fascinating. I love this show…

By: adama1843

04.25.2013 @ 3:17 AM

Another title for the Claudia spin-off: Gulaga.

By: PopzillaJoe

04.25.2013 @ 7:32 AM

I get it. Awesome.

By: nilbog44

04.25.2013 @ 9:49 PM

The pilot will be directed by John Gulager

By: goodhorse

05.02.2013 @ 2:22 PM

Well done Adama! You deserve Directorate S membership for being so clever!

By: hampshi

04.25.2013 @ 4:12 AM

So now we need to kill off Martha’s whole family. My money is going to be on Elizabeth ramming their car off a bridge. A wedding? Seriously? This whole Martha arc has lost some credulity from the wig. I can envision a dramatic scene with Martha shaking the wig in Philip’s face, “Who ARE you?”

By: buzmeg

04.25.2013 @ 5:36 AM

I can see Martha getting a glimpse of the sketches in Gaad’s office and recognizes them as Clark and his “sister.”

By: Daveski

04.25.2013 @ 1:17 PM

The writers have gone too far with Martha — she would seriously have to be the dumbest woman in the Western Hemisphere to fall for all of this . . .

By: GarySF

04.25.2013 @ 1:46 PM

I think you will believe quite a bit when you’ve been a spinster/single woman all your life and finally have found love. It probably is blinding her to the bizarreness of the requests from Clark. Yes, she’s not the brightest card in the deck, but I don’t think it strains credibility too much.

By: SlackerInc

04.25.2013 @ 3:22 PM

I agree with Jersey Rudy. I found it a bit implausible that she would accept the terms of the Clark visits to begin with; to me, once they were lovers it became easier, not harder, to buy.

By: Stan

04.25.2013 @ 6:28 PM

Why was it such a big deal for Clark to let Martha’s parents know about the marriage, but then he turns around and says he needs Elizabeth and Grannie there to represent his family? I can understand it from a TV perspective (wanting to have Elizabeth there for the ceremony), but wouldn’t part of the cover still be that they need the fewest number of people to know about the wedding???

By: GarySF

04.25.2013 @ 7:26 PM

Stan, Philip only “needs” his family there to avoid suspicion/enhance his lie to Martha, and maybe serve as legal witnesses. “Clark” would obviously trust his own mother and sister because they might already know what he does for a living, but it goes along with his cover story to be suspicious of letting anyone else know, including Martha’s parents. “Clark” isn’t concerned the wedding will increase the circle who could potentially identify him…he’s “concerned” that his “job” will be jeopardized if his “superiors” learn that he’s marrying one of his agency’s targets. A certain amount of paranoia in this fabricated situation would be completely normal.

And I think having Elizabeth there to see the ceremony is only incidental, not a deep desire on Philip’s part. If he had any other spies/confidantes he could bring along (like the black guy who died earlier, maybe) he’d have probably brought them instead.

By: Stan

04.25.2013 @ 9:34 PM

Why would “Clark” trust his mother and sister? His lie isn’t that people can’t know what he does for a living, it’s that he’s “investigating” Martha’s boss and can’t have any involvement with her. I just think Martha would wonder about it.

And I didn’t mean to suggest Philip wanted Elizabeth there, I meant that the TV show wanted to have Elizabeth witness Philip marry another woman. Sorry if that was confusing.

By: Neeraj

05.04.2013 @ 6:19 PM

I agree with the points people are making about creating and believing and needing illusions about the people we love. But wouldn’t Martha at some point realize that her husband is wearing a wig? Isn’t that something someone would figure out in bed or shower or whatever? Is she not allowed to touch his head or see his head up close or see the rest of his body hair? What about the glasses? Does she ever pick them up and realize that they’re fake lenses?

By: SlackerInc

05.04.2013 @ 7:36 PM

Neeraj, I have mentioned in discussions of past episodes that this always makes me think of an episode of “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” in which the straight guy of the week was bald and wore a toupee. Despite their having been married for years, his wife had never seen him without his rug in place. So that makes me feel like it is more plausible than we might think.

By: hampshi

04.25.2013 @ 4:19 AM

My post weirdly disappeared. To recap in brief, the whole house of cards will come crashing down on Clark when Martha notices it’s a wig. She’ll end up in a car with her parents getting rammed off a bridge by Elizabeth.

By: svetlana

04.25.2013 @ 9:48 AM

I really dont see that happening since martha is a f*cking idiot! I mean how many red flags does she needs before she suspects something is off? At the very least she should suspect that hes married. Having to keep your relationship secret is the number one sign that the guy is lying! I dont why but her character enrages me with how dumb she is.

By: svetlana

04.25.2013 @ 9:53 AM

My post disappeared to and it was in reply to your comment. To sum up my post I said that martha is a fucking moron.

By: Mahmoud Fayed

04.27.2013 @ 2:01 PM

Martha is an innocent qt 3.14 and you need to respect her right to fantasize

By: Jaxemer11

04.25.2013 @ 5:16 AM

So how useful would Nina really be as a triple agent? Beeman is a mere FBI agent without any secrets to reveal. They are operating in America, so its not like the Russians can arrest anyone. The only real value I see her having in her current position is to protect the members of Directorate S be feeding Beeman false information. But eventually, the FBI would figure out they are being played when all the leads she gives them end up being false, right?

By: PopzillaJoe

04.25.2013 @ 7:36 AM

Hmmm… I think she could be very valuable if she got Stan to start coughing up information. Beyond keeping Stan confused, she could potentially protect KGB Agents like Philip and Elizabeth, inform her side of any counterintelligence schemes, strategies, and protocols etc.

By: oliver

04.25.2013 @ 2:30 PM

I think the real question at play here is how many levels of agent one can play before their head would explode. Quadruple? Quintuple? Any octuple agents out there? Now that’s an FX spinoff I’d like to see!

By: Non-LeCarre

04.25.2013 @ 2:35 PM

Nina could be of plenty use in throwing FBI counter-intelligence off its game. Stan doesn’t have a lot of what I’ll call “primary” secrets, but he knows what America’s spy-catchers are up to- useful info for Russian spies.

By: 3hares

04.25.2013 @ 6:41 PM

She can feed a lot of false information, for one.

By: HISLOCAL

04.29.2013 @ 2:08 PM

I think Nina’s arc has been great this year, but I want it to climax in the finale rather than continue into next year. I just don’t see any good plotlines coming from the two of them constantly spying on each other. I’d rather have her go out in some spectacular way now, and have Stan be on a new case next year.

By: Gregory Ellwood

04.25.2013 @ 6:00 AM

I thought that Keri Russell was heartbreakingly good in this episode. It all felt overwhelmingly sad.

By: SlackerInc

04.25.2013 @ 3:22 PM

Agreed.

By: HitFix User

04.25.2013 @ 4:45 PM

No more so than any other… I’m already preparing for the heartbreak of her being overlooked at awards time. There are fabulous ladies on TV right now, but Russell is leaving them in the dust.

By: Opie

04.25.2013 @ 8:37 PM

Same here. I don’t know why, since from early on we were shown that they are no a real couple. I didn’t find the wedding scene funny at all, I found it incredibly sad. Why can’t they just love each other ?! :(

By: Alex

04.25.2013 @ 6:22 AM

Note to the writers…whatever you do, just make sure the daughter doesn’t go out with the neighbor and run over a homeless guy on a date. Daughter reminds me of Dana for some reason.

By: EMMA

04.25.2013 @ 4:45 PM

Haha yes! I was getting a definite ‘Dana’ vibe from her this episode too!

By: hunter2012

04.25.2013 @ 4:50 PM

I don’t see Paige as Dana at all. Yes she is sometimes disrespectful to her parents especially Elizabeth and insults her that would’ve earned a slap from my mother. Almost all teenagers disrespect their parents while testing their boundaries and start to have confidence in their own opinions (Matthew has a low opinion of his father, Stan) but she isn’t the total bratty girl Dana was in the first season and a half of “Homeland” (she mellowed and became likeable after she showed she wanted to take responsibility for the death of that woman her boyfriend ran over even if in truth she bore no responsibility).

Now if you want to see a real teenage b*tch on wheels check out Dana in the original Israeli version of Homeland”, “Prisoner of War”. She makes “Homeland” Dana at her worse look like a nice sweet girl and Paige an angel.

By: HISLOCAL

04.29.2013 @ 2:16 PM

I don’t mind unrelated subplots as long as they’re interesting, and I have to admit I was kind of invested in Paige being bummed out that her crush likes the prettier girl instead of her. Same thing on Bates Motel when the girl w/ cystic fibrosis is upset that Norman (who she thought was into her because he’s also an outsider) likes the pretty cheerleader instead, or when Debbie on Shameless wants to be like the pretty girls, but they make fun of her. It’s certainly more interesting than having her somehow be involved in her parent’s missions or something stupid like that.

By: Next page

05.01.2013 @ 12:42 AM

No way, Dana is a bit snarky. I don’t get the feeling that the writers will bring the kids into it. Possibly finding out what their parents do.
Unless of course they find a room full of wigs

By: Jonas.Left

04.25.2013 @ 6:58 AM

“Pac-dots are calorie free.” Oh, Granny. I think I love you now.

By: Next page

05.01.2013 @ 12:45 AM

Margo Martindale is incredible! I hope the conflict of her possibly being on a CBS show next year be a conflict. I loved her JUSTFIED which brought her an Emmy and THE RICHES.

By: Next page

05.01.2013 @ 12:46 AM

I meant NOT BE A CONFLICT.

By: Chesterfield

04.25.2013 @ 7:17 AM

The Elizabeth/Granny scenes this week were great, first at the arcade, then at the wedding (again, the show having fun with the disguises, winking at the audience). Especially the wedding scene, when we realize what is happening and how far Phillip is actually taking his deception. And you just KNOW that Phillip/Martha relationship will go dark at some point, getting more people involved only makes me dread that moment more.

By: mcm99

04.25.2013 @ 3:22 PM

I really don’t get all the love for the Grannie character. I know there is a lot of residual love for the actress from her role on Justified but not having seen that show, I really find the tone of her performance here a bit off. A bit cartoonish compared to the rest of the show. Honestly, I wish they would get replace her.

By: hunter2012

04.25.2013 @ 5:16 PM

@MCM99

I kind of know what you mean but in another way.

I found all the comparison of Kerri Russell’s previous role as Felicity in “Felicity” distracting from her performance now, even very unfair as if some in the audience wanted to dismiss her from the get go as some sort of light weight (the same with Richard Thomas being confined by his “John Boy” character in “The Waltons” which was some 35 years ago for heaven’s sake. People have let William Shatner move on from “Captain Kirk”; let Thomas move on from “John Boy”). I never saw the show “Felicity” and glad of it since I am not looking at her performance through that prism.

On the other hand yes I saw Martindale in “Justified” and loved her in it, but I think I can say that she is just as good here as she was in “Justified” and if I never saw her in “Justified” I would love her for this role. I don’t see her justified character when I see Claudia but I do detect the same ruthlessness, and I think that is why I think she was chosen for this role by the producers of “The Americans”, her ability to project a layer of menace even though she doesn’t do anything physical and even after we have since seen her get her face smashed in. I credit Martindale for being able to pull that off, having a sense of danger over Philip and Elizabeth despite that because she represents “The Centre” and so probably could kill them. I don’t find her “cartoonish” for that air of menace which is understated which to me is the opposite of “cartoonish”.

I just hope Martindale’s Claudia survives at least one more season.

By: john mosby

04.25.2013 @ 7:19 PM

I always see her as the postwoman in “Paris Je T’Aime.” I just bridge with my own retcon: the postwoman was Grannie’s first, tentative undercover op!

By: Athabasca

04.30.2013 @ 11:54 PM

@hunter — thanks for your post. I find that the callbacks to previous characters played by Keri Russell, Richard Thomas etc even in passing to be constantly distracting. Gaad is so not Johnboy, Keri Russell has thankfully moved on from Felicity. I wish Alan would move on too.

By: PopzillaJoe

04.25.2013 @ 7:26 AM

Fantastic episode and a great season overall. I wrote on my amateur blog in a mid-season review that the show told an extremely cohesive and tight story for having a fair amount of chess pieces in play at times. And the point made above about circling back to stories from earlier in the season rather than setting up new trouble for a big, action-packed finale is exactly that. Very smart storytelling in that way.

I was thinking about the potential of ‘The Americans’. I certainly don’t think, at this point, it deserves mention with greats like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, so on. I was wondering though, if it even has the pieces or potential to become something that could reasonably placed in that discussion. I don’t have an answer nor am I sure if speculating in that regard is even possible before such a stride is at least approached. I’m sure many TV fans would be a bit defensive of the Golden Age, Mount Rushmore contenders for even making the suggestion, but I was trying to think back to the first season of Breaking Bad and our thoughts (if any) in that regard. Mad Men’s first season was pretty damn incredible and so obviously literary and special in terms of setting it is probably different. But looking back, Breaking Bad’s first season (while really good) was probably a step behind what it would become a season or two later. I was thinking that should The Americans take such a leap forward (a pretty high, almost unrealistic bar I know) is this show a fair contender to fill the shoes of the great dramas that are ending in a year or two or should we be looking elsewhere?

Also, the ratings seem to be solid and critics are largely very positive about the show, but does the overall buzz seem to be a bit quiet for how good this show’s been? Seems that way to me anyway.

Either way, I’m happy to be tuning in weekly and I’m as excited for next week’s finale as much as anyone.

I’m so glad the review noted Matthew Beeman’s band! I tweeted while I was watching for potential names. I couldn’t really come up with anything clever (Flirting with Trouble, Dining Room Disasters) but I think there might be some humor to be had.

By: PopzillaJoe

04.25.2013 @ 7:30 AM

[meant to say] *as excited about next week’s finale as anything so far this year.

By: SlackerInc

04.25.2013 @ 3:25 PM

I think it is very close to being as good as BB was in the first season (and BB became, by the third season, my favourite show of all time). It is not as good as The Wire or Six Feet Under (the other members of my top three) were in their respective first seasons IMO.

Mad Men, I consider vastly overrated; so The Americans easily beats it in my book.

By: Jonas.Left

04.25.2013 @ 4:42 PM

I don’t mean this as a personal attack on anyone, but I think this constant attempt to rank the relative artistic merit of the various shows on television is really unconstructive and misses the point of art altogether. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying one shouldn’t like a show better than another or consider it better than others, but treating the subjective worth of art as if it can be quantified objectively is, to me, wrong-headed. The entertainment industries created awards to glorify themselves and people in those industries compete with each other for the prestige they bring, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to buy into the fiction that storytelling has some points system like the Olympics that creates a winner when you add it all up. The Americans is a great show. Breaking Bad is too. Mad Men (though I have never watched it) is by all accounts a great show. So was The Wire. Each of them is so different in style, substance, and subject matter it seems silly to think they need to be set against each other in some race to be considered the best.

By: GarySF

04.25.2013 @ 5:52 PM

I was with you, JONAS, right up until you said you’ve never watched Mad Men. That caused you to lose some credibility with in talking about relative greatness of TV shows. :-)

By: PopzillaJoe

04.25.2013 @ 9:32 PM

Jonas, I agree with you to some extent. Emily Nussbaum wrote a compelling piece about why she stopped doing top ten lists. I don’t think playing the ranking game is the MOST constructive exercise, as opposed to getting in and discussing, deconstructing, etc. But there are many practical reasons to engage in those discussions including to figure out which shows you might want to watch if you have limited time. I, for one, like quality, I don’t necessarily prefer any genre to another or style or context, I just want to see the best shows. Now, comparing and lists are pretty cheap, I’ve called them the one night stands of criticism. But to say that there is no way to objectively quantify value even to a loose extent seems even more silly. So if I were to make a shitty web show in the next day with minimal effort, you could distinguish it from an AMC drama in quality? Of course the answer is no, you can say which is better. I know that likely seems less than helpful, but the point is that whatever ideal standards you are using to compare those two can also be used, though its much more difficult to compare two shows that are good. Most importantly, its just fun. I don’t think much message board banter is actually impacting anything in the world so if comparing shows like trading cards feels fun, why not?

The last thing, is that I wasn’t even trying to get deep in the game of comparisons here: which is better or whatever. I was wondering how people were feeling, in general, about whether The Americans was of the ballpark quality to fill the void that these great shows will be leaving in the next year or two. In the same ballpark I suppose, but not exactly what you responded to.

I say all this in a respectful voice, understanding your point and all. I just think that while that argument has some value and application, I think the whole “you can’t compare art” when pushed to the limit will mean, Joe’s Sucky Web Show is as great as Six Feet Under. Or who’s to say that Hemlock Grove isn’t better than Buffy. And that strikes me as more silly (and less fun) than trying to figure out what AMC’s best drama is. Excellent talking to you though! Thanks for the response.

By: Jonas.Left

04.25.2013 @ 10:59 PM

POPZILLAJOE I think there’s a difference between assessing quality and quantifying it. I have no problem saying that something that’s awful is worse than something that’s good. My point is that when you start comparing great shows that the differences are too intangible. To give an example, let’s compare Two and a Half men to Community. I have absolutely no issue with saying that if you think the former is superior to the latter that you are factually wrong. I think that the lack of quality of Two and a Half Men is beyond opinion. Now, if you compare Community to other good comedies, I might like it better than them, but could I say with that same certitude that someone was wrong to prefer Frasier or Everybody Loves Raymond? No. Another example I’ve used to illustrate this point is the debate over the greatest movie ever made. I personally don’t care for The Godfather, but if someone put it up against Citizen Kane I would say that either of those was a reasonable choice even though I like Citizen Kane so much more. But if someone says that they think Deepthroat is the best movie ever made, their opinion is just wrong.

I also think that the dramas compared in the previous posts are all trying or tried to accomplish something different and tells or told its stories in completely different styles and tones. Is The Wire better than Breaking Bad because of its scope and grim realism. Is Breaking Bad better than The Wire because of the depths it goes in exploring its characters and the dark humor it employs. I would say no to both those questions. I think when you have greatness its best to appreciate it rather than cheapen it by debating which masterpiece is superior.

On the other hand if you have shows that have similar subject matter and tone, it can be quite valuable to compare them. When The Shield and The Sopranos were on the air, I often felt that a fair comparison of the two gave The Shield the edge. I think Deep Space Nine is the best of the nineties Trek series because its quality shone a spotlight on how the others were less successful as dramas and more shallow in extrapolating from the premise of Star Trek. A lot of people probably disagree with those opinions, but they are each based on judging works of a piece. Comparing Breaking Bad, a drama about a common man descending into amoral criminality, to The Americans, a relationship drama set against an espionage backdrop, seems less apt. I guess my point is that, although there are legitimite comparisons to be made between apples and oranges, the more instructive conclusions are to be found in more focused juxtapositions ( like Buffy versus Hemlock Grove).

And I enjoyed this exchange, too. Thanks.

By: PopzillaJoe

04.25.2013 @ 11:33 PM

Excellent points JonaS.Left! I think we are pretty much on the same page here then. And I actually think its a pretty close to a workable middle ground between the art can’t be judged crowd and the make a top-five list out of everything crowd.

I might suggest that the whatever logic/standards/rules we apply to say with confidence Deepthroat isn’t better than Citizen Kane could hypothetically be applied to much tougher, more nuanced comparisons like Breaking Bad vs Mad Men. Though (correct me if I’m wrong) I think what you are saying is that once we get that nit-picky our microscopes aren’t even sharp enough to properly make those distinctions and they are both great, so why even try? I would say that I don’t know The Shield’s goals are anymore similar to Sopranos than any of the other comparisons, but that’s not really that important anyway.

The last thing I’ll say is that in my original post, I was essentially asking is that if other people were getting the vibe that The Americans was even roughly in the same ballpark or even flimsier yet, could it be. I wasn’t necessarily trying to pick em apart for a rank or anything — so I guess that would fall somewhere between understanding that obviously 2 Broke Girls isn’t as good as Community and comparing 2 clearly top notch dramas. And the more important thing was wondering if anyone felt that if it was even in that ballpark if it felt like the buzz was sort of low…

Anyway, nice chatting with you! That’s all I have on the matter.

By: Next page

04.26.2013 @ 3:24 AM

To popzillaoe, THE AMERICANS is a fabulous show and a great “filler” waiting for BB. But no way is it ever going to be that incredible. Do you remember FACE OFF? Or the scene with Fring at the pool and Tuco, oh please don’t get me started. All of this is random thoughts. Oh the jail scene. When Walt hires someone to kill all those men. THE AMERICANS is great and just will never be able to have scenes like the one Vincent created. Because it doesn’t have to. Another new show on BBC ORPHAN BLACK in great. I am sure you all have checked it out. I can’t wait till next week! Cheers

By: PopzillaJoe

04.26.2013 @ 4:09 AM

Hey I hear you there, Next Page. Not exactly sure but s4 of Breaking Bad is a real contender for my favorite season of TV ever. Also, Face Off is a real contender for best ep. I’m not claiming it is going to become that. Just seeing that everyone thought. I guess I’m doubtful, but also doubtful of my doubt, if that makes any sense. I just wonder, for example, if after the first season BB if someone were to say, I wonder if this is the next Sopranos, if it wouldn’t seem just as laughable. I guess as much as I enjoy the performance of the two leads in The Americans, it probably isn’t in the same league as Bryan Cranston, and that was evident pretty early. I guess we’ll see!

By: SlackerInc

04.26.2013 @ 3:05 PM

“But there are many practical reasons to engage in those discussions including to figure out which shows you might want to watch if you have limited time….Most importantly, its just fun.”

Agree strongly on both counts, POPZILLAJOE. But then, I get a lot of fun out of ranking movies, too (if you want to see my list, which still needs some tweaking, go to [www.flickchart.com] ). I sometimes have trouble deciding between two movies from different genres or eras (it’s always “between two” because that is the way Flickchart helps you sort out your list, by asking you to pick between two at a time). But ultimately I figure that if two movies are within a few spots of each other (even within a couple dozen spots) they are essentially equal in my esteem.

By: Next page

04.27.2013 @ 3:49 AM

To JONAS.LEFT when you enter the discussion of sit coms I must say almost none (really none) can hold a candle to Seinfeld, friends , Fraser, mash, cheers, endless list. I find them quite intolerable. ARRESTED DEVELOPMENTNfunny and community, that you mentioned, but none do what the program’s I mentioned.
Can’t even think it’s a generation thing, my niece is 19 and loves friend. Oh what about Curb Your Enthu.
The dramas on the other hand, that we all chat about are brilliant.
Cheers

By: Alberto

04.25.2013 @ 11:56 AM

I’m having issues with the show since Phillip was asked to leave. That dynamic between them is missing. Also both characters have grown less sympathetic, particularly Elizabeth’s character. I was rooting last week for the CIA deputy director to smash Elizabeth’s skull through the wall of the bathroom.

There has been less doubt about their actions. Phillip’s conflict about defecting is gone. I find that strange. I would think all that has happened would cause him to be even more conflicted. Elizabeth seems to have recovered from the questions raised by the kidnapped CIA director.

If you lose sympathy for the characters you lose the audience. The same with nurse Jackie. She is so unlikable and reprehensible a character I stopped watching.

By: Sharona1961

04.25.2013 @ 1:13 PM

I agree in part with what you said – I also miss the dynamic Phillip and Elizabeth had when they were still living together. As for not finding them sympathetic – I’ve never really viewed them as sympathetic. They are interesting and fascinating, and I can logically understand why they do the things they do, but I’ve never been sympathetic. Maybe that’s because they are acting against my country, and I have an ingrained patriotism that bucks against what they are doing, even while I enjoy watching them do it. Not that I’m a jingoistic “America right or wrong” kind of person – I fully understand the United States participation and complicity in the Cold War. But it’s hard to root for characters that are acting against my country’s best interests. So, I disagree that I have to find Elizabeth and Phillip sympathetic to enjoy watching this show – I love this show and am really looking forward to the season finale.

By: Non-LeCarre

04.25.2013 @ 2:43 PM

I dunno- the Soprano’s held my interest and they were a bunch of dirtbags. Some characters on the Wire too I suppose.

By: 3hares

04.25.2013 @ 6:46 PM

I don’t think Philip’s conflict has gone away, it’s just that it was never a conflict about defecting. He still would like to retire and live as Philip and Elizabeth, but he only put it in terms of defecting at that moment when they had Timoshev because he saw that as something they could bring in for bargaining. If the opportunity presented itself he’d no doubt want to defect again, but no Elizabeth wouldn’t do it. But the real opportunity came up in the pilot and he rejected it for Elizabeth so he’s still committed.

By: Next page

04.26.2013 @ 3:33 AM

I think they are getting along fine while they are on “pause” they are still being good parents. It seems we like the bad guys. These KGB agents. The FBI are more antagonistic. We love Walter White. Look at Tony Soprano. After all is said and done, we must realise this is just a show. Not real life. Lets enjoy the last one and glad it’s renewed

By: Nick

04.25.2013 @ 1:18 PM

“* How many takes do you figure were necessary for Matthew Rhys to throw the grape right into Holly Taylor’s mouth? Or was it all CGI?”

This is pretty simple really. Have you ever had a shrimp tossed in your mouth at Benihana?

By: mcm99

04.25.2013 @ 3:18 PM

Have you ever gotten a shrimp in the eye at Benihana? Yes, yes I have.

By: oliver

04.25.2013 @ 2:33 PM

“I feel anyone not in the immediate Jennings family (and maybe Stan, but even he’s not entirely safe) could be in serious jeopardy in the finale.”

Good night, John Boy!

By: SlackerInc

04.25.2013 @ 3:27 PM

Ha! Well played, sir.

By: SlackerInc

04.25.2013 @ 3:20 PM

Wowzers. Here we all thought–or most of us thought, anyway–that Clark was going to have to try to extricate himself from the increasing seriousness of the relationship with Martha. Instead, he doubles down and proposes! That is so sick. I love it.

Martha, when she was dressed up for dinner, showed that she really is not so homely at all but just needed a makeover.

I wrote the following before seeing the final scene:

“So awesome how slick Irina is getting. She is expertly continuing to feed Stan moderately valuable info, while keeping from him the big secrets, including her new job. And she almost got him to admit he killed Vlad by hitting him with the question at just the right moment.”

So I’m sympathetic to Alan’s argument that it was this moment that turned her rather than the oath she took. But I’m not entirely convinced. Maybe it was both?

By: Stan

04.25.2013 @ 6:30 PM

If you were two of the greatest spies on the planet, able to master other cultures, technologies, surveillance techniques, and a whole bunch of other cool spy stuff, don’t you think you could figure out where your 10-year-old son buried some keys?

By: Next page

04.26.2013 @ 3:37 AM

Maybe they had another set of keys. The kid wants mom and dad. They are terrific actors.

By: hunter2012

04.25.2013 @ 6:37 PM

Great episode better than last weeks, but that is no swipe at last weeks which I wouldn’t say was bad but was “less good” than the previous quality of episodes before, but it was good.

I do worry about Martha. For all the worry about hot Nina is going to end up dead because some of us guys in the audience don’t want to see her hotness leave the show, no one is much worrying about Martha. I am as guilty of this as anyone because, yes she is not as good looking as Nina is so I didn’t fear for her in my lecherous way. :-)

That said while it has crossed my mind before, this episode really has got me thinking what would happen when she learns the truth. I think she will die. If Martha isn’t killed by the KGB I think she will commit suicide. From what she said to Philip/Clark her life was if not a disaster didn’t have much happiness in it. Then Clark came into her life and married her. Then she learns the truth. Yes I think suicide is a likely fate for her.

She is just not as tough as Nina is who walked into the lion’s mouth knowing the strong possibility of her walking into a bullet in the basement of the Lubyanka but gambling on how much she is worth to the KGB as a triple agent. The thing is even if Arkady does use her as a “triple” agent, she likely wouldn’t be out of the woods. It could be even likely once her usefulness is used up she would still face a dire sentence back home. I think the only way she will escape is that Arkady doesn’t tell The Centre either because he likes her or he may worry that having a mole under his nose that he promoted would look very bad for him in the Kremlin’s eyes. If I am right then Vasili isn’t coming back anytime soon-assuming he isn’t dead already.

Yes I believe it was Stan lying to her that made her decision. Stan is just not a very good lair when he is not undercover. I am sure he was as good as Elizabeth and Philip are when infiltrating the Neo Nazi groups. He had to be when his life was on the line every day, but when he is being his normal self with everyone who is not a suspect of some kind he is so transparent, but I am willing to believe she does have some patriotism.

Oh as for Martha’s parents, I don’t think it will be Philip or even Elizabeth that would kill them if it ever became necessary. I think now that Claudia knows them it would be her that would assign the hit to other officers or professional assassins because she knows how emotionally attached Philip would be. I am NOT saying Philip loves or really cares for Martha, but you can’t get close to someone even under false pretenses without having some human feelings for that person. If not then he would really be a kind of psychopath. Elizabeth had a look of regret when she killed Adam and she only knew him for a few minutes, so I think it would be much harder for Philip to kill Martha (and a from a story telling stand point it would make them far harder to root for if either of them did the deed while if it is Claudia or another handler we can put our hate on her or her replacement).

Quiz: Anyone get the significance within the context of espionage the surname of Martha being “Hansen”?

Other things:

I think it wasn’t CGI that had the actors who play Paige and Philip successfully toss grapes into each other mouths. The producers don’t CGI out any anachronistic buildings or street signs or Verizon trucks so I don’t see them doing that for this. I speculate that the actors really made a game out of it and just filmed it and just took a few of the successful “goals” and used it in the episode.

BTW anyone notice the all too modern late 1990s early 2000s cars and trucks passing in the intersection as Prince was arrested for lack of payment a child support? Couldn’t they block off the street and have vintage 1970s and early 80s cars pass by?

And while I think it is early May 1981 now in the timeline of the show one has to over look the snow.

Actually I think Mathew’s band is pretty good! And yes “Pat Benatar” being more womanly will attract Mathew’s attention. Paige is not in her league likely from Mathew’s POV, just like Nina wasn’t in Vlad’s league from Vlad’s own POV.

Speaking of which I definitely got the feeling that if Vlad made a play for Nina he would’ve got her. Perhaps that is why she is so persistent with Stan. Maybe she saw him as a brother and that is why; but Vlad being a potential if unlikely boyfriend is also a possibility. Believe it or not, there are some beautiful women who like the “sensitive guys”, the nerds. Rare, but they exist. :-)

By: Next page

04.26.2013 @ 3:47 AM

Sorry , Phillip is just doing his job. He has no feelings for Martha.
I don’t think he would be the appropriate person to kill her, if that is the intention of the writers. We will see, and maybe we will have to wait till next season.

By: hunter2012

04.26.2013 @ 7:25 PM

@Jerseyrudy:

I don’t think it is that arbitrary given what we know. I think the timeline I made right after “Safe House” was shown three weeks ago in a reply to” is valid if not totally accurate:

There is enough spacing between missions between episodes two and twelve so it can fit the two month spread (think the pilot is set in the first week of March or last week of February 1981). Each mission seem to last only about one to three days so there is time for a few days to go by between the missions we are shown.

While I know the show runners aren’t rock ridged in the depiction of the passage of time what is for sure I believe it is not early 1982. Yes they moved the debut of songs, speeches and iconic TV show episode of “The Fall Guy” for dramatic effect regarding the mood and the subject matter of a particular episode but I still believe from other more reliable evidence that it is still the first half of 1981. In this very episode, “The Oath”, Agent Gadd said to Mrs. Caspar Weinberger that the bug in her husband’s study had been there “a few months”, which would match if the bug was planted in say the second week of March to around the first week of May as I guesstimate. Of course I realize the meaning of “a few months” can be argued over, I take it as mean about two in this case.

Anyway, like I said one has to ignore the snow for the simple fact that the show runners can’t control the weather.

@Next Page:

I don’t think Philip is that cold. Yes he by no means is in love with Martha and she is a target but I don’t think after spending all that time with her he will feel nothing for her when the time comes to get rid of her. I think he will have compassion for her and sadness. As I said I don’t think he will be the one to kill her, nor Elizabeth. Claudia I think will get someone else to do it like she did to get rid of Robert’s wife-assuming that Martha doesn’t kill herself which I suspect she will.

Going by how both Elizabeth and Philip looked and felt depressed over the killing of Amador and what they did to Viola the maid’s son I think he will have a pained conscience. As I said before if he really doesn’t feel anything for Martha in terms of some guilt or at least bad feelings over the pain she will inevitably feel then he really would be a psychopath.

By: Next page

04.27.2013 @ 3:54 AM

Thank you HUNTER2012 I guess it went by when he met Martha. Philip seems really nice, not a cold blooded killer to do away with Martha. She plays her part great, I guess love is blind. The writers better be compassionate. Not getting a feeling of suicide.

By: hunter2012

05.01.2013 @ 6:30 PM

@Jerseyrudy:

We will probably have to agree to disagree but I think that is a false dichotomy. It doesn’t have to be all one or the other. Now yes they have moved things like using songs that weren’t released yet in early 1981 as they did with a TV episode of the “Fall Guy” and most notably the Reagan December 1981 speech again for dramatic license but they are not skipping though weeks and months between episodes. Other things that the show shows for passing of time are major events like the assassination attempt on President Reagan (March 30, 1981); the first day of the Major League Baseball season (April 10, 1981); the day of the a NHL hockey quarter final (April 26, 1981) are much more hard in terms of time references to give the audience a definite time of the year they are in.

You’re right in that in terms of discipline “The Americans” showrunners are more liberal in using things like background music and TV show episodes that were released in the appropriate time period they are depicting than “Mad Men”, but that doesn’t mean the showrunners of “The Americans” aren’t using a lot of things that can be used to pinpoint in time with, reasonable accuracy as the aforementioned dates above.

And I think there is more than enough time between when Claudia was beaten-April 10th at the end of “Trust” (S1XE6)-and the day of the Hockey quarter final-the 26th in “Safe House” (S1XE9)-would be 16 days and that is a reasonable amount of elapsed time for Claudia’s bruises to heal given what was shown of them fading over multiple episodes.

By: Next page

04.26.2013 @ 2:57 AM

Margo/Granny can be in two shows. Susan Misner,Stans wife in on NASVILLE the same night playing Deacon new girlfriend and is also a Vet.

By: Next page

04.26.2013 @ 3:05 AM

What does Martha think Clark does? I think I am not sure.
She certainly playing moron of the month, she didn’t seem to even care Clark was married, wasn’t concerned they can’t live together.
I like her pro and con list. Pathetic. Love THE AMERICANS

By: hunter2012

04.26.2013 @ 10:56 AM

Martha knows what “Clark” does, that is the cover story Philip has laid. Martha thinks “Clark” is looking for leaks and possible double agents within the Counter Intelligence Division of the FBI. He came to her under the pretext of looking for leaks in her office from the agents, so it has to be secret. The premise being if it isn’t then of course whoever is leaking information deliberately or not will stop what they are doing. If you remember in the pilot when they first met he said he was from the Internal Affairs Division of the Committee to Oversee United States Counter Intelligence Agencies and swore her in before questioning that she was not to reveal classified top secret information about what she was about to say to him to no one else. Think of “Clark’s” supposed job as the equivalent of a local police department’s Internal Affairs Bureau who look for dirty cops in their midst.

He got her to plant that bug in Agent Gadd’s office under that premise of that he may be the leak. The terrible irony that will break her heart when she learns the truth is that *she’s* the leak. As I said before my theory is that realization and the fact that Clark doesn’t love her and lied for so long and she was fooled so thoroughly thinking that she finally found happiness she is going to kill herself.

I don’t think she is a moron (and, IMHO, I think we the audience has more information about her situation that she could possibly have). I think she is looking for love after years of disappointment. Indeed she did have a too good to be true moment mentioning to “Clark” that he essentially fell out of the sky after years of disappointment. The thing is she doesn’t want to be disappointed again so while her conscious mind probably is wondering just a little her subconscious has pushed it aside. That includes any questions about his previous relationships.

And I like her pro con list. Maybe more people should make one to shift through logically the reasons they should be with that person.

BTW I am intrigued how the showrunners constantly compare and contrast the protagonist and antagonist. Nina is a tougher more confident but cynical, fatalistic, and loner version of Martha. Nina has the balls to turn triple agent. I believe Martha won’t when she finds out. Martha is desperately searching for love and is eager to please perhaps want to see the best in people for both their sake and hers, and that is probably why she didn’t want to probe into Clark’s” (fake) previous marriage (though he did say some honest things about his relationship with Elizabeth to Martha). So from that I think while Nina was able to risk death to gain an advantage, Martha is going to crack and dispose of herself, at least that is the theory of mine.

Stan is now Martha in the Nina Stan dynamic not only in who is playing who but who has emotional control of the other. Nina and Stan know the nature of their relationship, while Martha is in the dark, although now that Nina has turned back Stan is in the dark like Martha. I think on some level Stan know the relationship is going nowhere while Nina of course knows this as a conscious fact.

If I am right I will feel very sorry for Martha when the truth comes out.

But maybe she will surprise me and try to kill “Clark”. Maybe like Nina suspecting Stan when it does come out Martha will think Phillip killed Amador.

Here is an off the wall thought: Maybe if the truth comes out Martha would try to protect Philip, in direct opposite of what Nina did.

By: Other Scott

04.26.2013 @ 5:10 AM

Arcade Ire – I’m still laughing and it’s the next day. Well played, Sepinwall.

By: njp584

04.26.2013 @ 11:11 AM

It’s a testament to the writers’ abilities how subtly they have dialed up the intrigue and character development, and dialed down the 80s nuggets of nostalgia. In the beginning of the season, before we knew the depth of Phillip and Elizabeth, or Stan, or Nina, we just had “Ooh, Acid Wash Jeans and Phil Collins! I remember!” The show could’ve become an 80s memory lane trip. Apparently they’d seen “That 80s Show.” The 80s has rightfully taken its place as a static set piece, rather than an active character. Though, I can’t wait to get to the episode where Stan and Phil, killing a twelve pack while Sandra and Elizabeth are out of town, try to solve a Rubik’s cube while getting progressively more drunk. The Rubik’s cube could serve as a metaphor for the increasingly complicated cold war system of alliances and meta-language in international politics associated with every foreign policy decision made by either government, or it could be a stupid kid’s toy that made everyone supremely frustrated. Either or.

By: hunter2012

04.26.2013 @ 7:50 PM

We did see Henry handling a Rubik’s Cube in his room in the after math of Elizabeth and Philip telling the kids about the separation. And other things like Mathew’s walkman like cassette player and the Jennings’s mini cassette recorders they use on missions. Yes, the 80s background is just that a background, so much so “The Americans” look like it could’ve been made back then-if you ignore the anachronistic cars and buildings that sneak into the background often and the lack of a 1980s action TV cinematic style. Think the “Fall Guy” and “Magnum PI” and “The Dukes of Hazzard” beginning credits sequences. :-)

By: justjoan123

04.26.2013 @ 5:11 PM

So it now appears that while Clark and Martha are married, Phillip and Elizabeth never were? Somehow I assumed that when their Kremlin-engineered union was initiated they went through a civil ceremony of some kind. If not, then what is the status of their children? That is, are the U.S.-born children of a cohabiting couple awarded citizenship? I’m so confused, and I sure Paige isn’t in for a rude shock when she goes to apply for a passport for that class trip to Mexico.

By: hunter2012

04.26.2013 @ 9:13 PM

No, there never was a marriage ceremony in Russia or in the US of any kind between Philip and Elizabeth. It has always been fake. It is a cover story for their spying activities for the KGB, so there was no need to have a ceremony. As I said last week all what happened is that they were handed wedding rings and fake marriage certificates along with other fake documents. Why go through a ceremony for a cover story?

Technically both Henry and Paige are illegitimate since by law Philip and Elizabeth were never married (they might fall under the term common law marriage since they did live together for so long). They are both US citizens, Americans since they were born here regardless of the status of their parents. Both Paige and Henry would have no trouble at all getting US passports since they all have real documentation from the moment they were born.

Now what Elizabeth was wondering that if they actually said vows, even for a sham marriage maybe their life and regard for each other would’ve been different since even if they didn’t love each other (albeit I think Philip loved Elizabeth from the beginning) saying those words would’ve made the marriage more real even if it was based on a lie for ulterior motives. The psychology of both would’ve been different, it probably psychologically speaking, would’ve been more like a traditional arranged marriage. Two strangers are married to each other by an outside force that wills it, but often the couple makes it real and real love does develop. Philip and Elizabeth didn’t even have that; just at best a fake piece of paper to show the Americans.

By: hunter2012

04.26.2013 @ 9:22 PM

Oh and I forgot to add. Elizabeth and Philip were never rewarded American citizenship; that is why this type of spy are called “Illegals” by both American Counter Intelligence and the KGB. They were given as I mentioned false papers for false identities and smuggled into the country.

By: G21

04.27.2013 @ 10:52 PM

How come my guy Filthy Phil is such a bum when it comes to feeding his kids? In one episode he’s having them eat from the vending machine…THE VENDING MACHINE. He couldn’t at least order a pizza or something? Last episode he’s tossing grapes at his daughter and sending her home with mac ‘n cheese in a bowl??…I mean Filthy Phil even cheap with the women…doesn’t even have a ring at dinner…just writing “marry me” on her hand.

Seriously though…feeding your kids out of vending machines? Mother Russia really not paying you that well? Because they seem to have a nice house. I think he’s just being cheap.

By: Daniel Valverde

04.28.2013 @ 4:39 AM

Just thought I’d mention (as the editor of this episode) that if you throw enough grapes, a few are more than likely to hit their target (and Matthew does have good aim). There was a lot of great improv between the actors in this scene, although I had to cut around some rather contemporary idiom.

By: Jimmbo

04.29.2013 @ 4:24 AM

Daniel, comment reading sparses out after a few days around here (or you’d have gotten more response), but it’s great to have you here. You’re doing a stellar job – worthy if the writing, directing, and acting….and that’s saying something!

Did you guys know how good this show was even before it started airing?

By: Jimmbo

04.29.2013 @ 1:44 PM

Worthy OF

By: Daniel Valverde

04.29.2013 @ 3:44 PM

I think we all had an idea from viewing the pilot that this might be something special, but I was wowed beyond my expectations by the scripts that followed. It’s rare in my experience that an episodic maintains such high stakes, and the characters and situations just kept getting richer. I feel very lucky indeed to be a part of this series.

By: jimmbo

04.29.2013 @ 4:43 PM

Yes, it was an unusually “together” pilot, even by standards of great shows. That may have helped galvanize everyone into stepping up on the subsequent shows.

I see from IMDB you’ve been involved in quality projects, but (assuming it doesn’t get screwed up in 2nd season, ala Homeland), this is looking like one for the ages….perhaps on the level of The Wire, Sopranos, Breaking Bad, and Deadwood. I’m happy for you, and look forward to more.

Next time pipe in earlier, so you’ll draw the adulation you richly deserve! I don’t think your previous projects have been covered by Alan, but he’s definitely the go-to guy (including for industry insiders) for reviews on shows this good, so I hope you’ll stick around.

By: Daniel Valverde

04.29.2013 @ 4:52 PM

Thanks! From my conversations with Joel Fields and Joe Weisberg, I expect that the show will maintain itself in season 2. As far as accolades go, I’m basking in their light. They are incredibly gifted writers and show runners, and so make my job easy!

By: Jimmbo

04.29.2013 @ 5:05 PM

One more question: What do you think of the theory that (aside from Joe and Joel’s talent) one reason for the show’s success is that it’s one of the few shows in production in NY, so loads and loads of people wanted desperately to be involved, meaning the producers had the absolute pick of the litter to choose from?

I have a friend who was up for a writing position, and was praying for it to happen so he could stay in NY. He can’t be the only one, I’m figuring (he was rejected because he had no experience writing “period” drama, which incensed him ‘cuz he’d lived through this period…it wasn’t, like, Barry Lyndon!).

By: Daniel Valverde

04.29.2013 @ 7:17 PM

I was actually surprised to get the gig myself, since I was up against feature editors with longer resumes, so I think their hiring choices were only partly about credits (and my resume is largely dramedy – I’m now cutting “Royal Pains” – quite a contrast). Actually, I give JF & JS a lot of the credit for story development and pulling scripts together. I’m not in the writers’ room, so it’s hard to say, but our EPs are both clearly on top of their game. To hear them discuss story it’s apparent that they think each episode through on a very deep level. They are constantly pushing story and character in more complex directions in both the writing and the editing. It’s rare to work on a show where the scripts are so consistently first class, and I have to believe that they are a big part of the reason.

By: Jimmbo

04.29.2013 @ 7:44 PM

Yes, that depth of consideration really shows. A couple insights from comments on another site:

The irony of Elizabeth watching Philip marry a woman wearing the heart pendant that Philip had given her (calling back the full range of the many doublebacks)

Nina taking the oath and receiving the sword-and-shield pin; when, in church, the preacher talks about how lies are “the Devil’s sword and shield”.

The EPs’ dense attention to detail (never presented heavy-handedly) is a lot of what makes it great.

By: jimmbo

04.29.2013 @ 8:00 PM

Also, Fields and Weisberg have to know by this point that the biggest target of fan criticism is the magic Soviet wig adhesive (“glues ex machina”?).

It’d be amusing to see them somehow wink at the issue next season….

By: Daniel Valverde`

04.29.2013 @ 8:51 PM

The wig issue is a tough one. The entire premise of living this multiple identity depends on Phillip’s being able to be credible as another persona, and disguises are part and parcel to the spy game. Joe is a stickler for good trade craft, but how can we maintain this delicious fiction without some technical license? BTW, there was a real KGB program where agents had secret weddings to the secretaries of high officials – that is no fiction. Unbelievable as it sounds, they used excuses very similar to Clark’s for keeping the relationships secret.

By: Jimmbo

04.29.2013 @ 10:18 PM

“how can we maintain this delicious fiction without some technical license?”

License granted, as far as I’m concerned.

As for the secret weddings, some enterprising reporter needs to find a real-life abandoned Martha and write a tie-in story! (assuming they haven’t all been assassinated via poison-tipped umbrellas).

By: Athabasca

04.30.2013 @ 4:20 PM

Fascinating conversation, I love eavesdropping like this :) Daniel, kudos to you for your contribution. I do love The Americans. I have no quibble with the wig, but I do see Martha in a fit of sexual passion ripping it off Philip’s head. It will happen. She is that kinda girl.

but please answer me this, if you can. Paige and her brother are young kids. Why do Elizabeth and Philip leave them alone at home for soooooo long, without checking in, without calling a sitter? It’s not like Paige can do it all, that kind of assumption isn’t being made is it? Sometimes, after everyone is tucked in at night, either MOm or Dad or both go out, and isn’t that child abandonment? Seriously, isn’t this covered somewhere? Just wondering.

Other than that, great show. ONe for the ages.

By: Daniel Valverde

04.30.2013 @ 10:51 PM

Nowadays, it’s a simple matter for parents to send a text or call their kids on the cell, but that wasn’t the case back then. Running to a payphone in disguise in the middle of a mission? Impractical, if not dangerous. Nevertheless, the series does address the possibility that Elizabeth and Phillip may sometimes be forced to abandon their kids. In episode 6, “Trust Me,” Paige and Henry are indeed left stranded at the mall; Phillip refers to calling the sitter in episode 8, “Mutually Assured Destruction.” And if the writers did have Phillip and Elizabeth constantly referring to calling the sitter or interrupting missions, I’m sure we’d cut it out 9 times out of 10, so it wouldn’t damage the dramatic momentum, or worse, become a comedic running gag.

By: Jimmbo

04.30.2013 @ 11:18 PM

“And if the writers did have Phillip and Elizabeth constantly referring to calling the sitter or interrupting missions, I’m sure we’d cut it out 9 times out of 10”

LOL! The cold hard truth, deliverable only by an editor!

That explanation could deflect 90% of fan angst re: any show. If shows took pains to plug every single plot holes and to prioritizing the delivery of seamless “reality”, the result would be tiresome, bloated, and unentertaining.

Lots of fans (partly thanks to comments sections like this) are so used to objecting to holes that “take us out of the show” that we can forget that a show’s primary obligation is to entertain, rather than play relentless defense against all possible picky objections!

By: Athabasca

05.01.2013 @ 12:03 AM

Dan and Jimmbo, thanks for that insight. jimmbo, I am right there with you about the pickiness and I generally do ‘suspend disbelief’ when it is truly merited. But the kids being left to their own devices so often skates on the edge of implausibility for me, and that can hurt the believability of this series. Dan, I get that the editor exercises those kinds of choices for very good reasons too. The plotter in me wonders whether the KGB has a contingency plan for the dependants of agents when the agents are killed or seriously injured…someone like a surrogate Granny? Cheers!

By: Jimmbo

05.01.2013 @ 12:21 AM

Holy crap, please let’s not see the kids wind up with Granny! Wait, no, oh god, on second thought, YES! Please please make that a spin-off! Would be amazing!

As for the rest, I see a contradiction between “I generally do ‘suspend disbelief'” and yet still complaining about implausibility. Ot’s implausibility you’re overlooking with suspension of disbelief!

We all have our pet picky issues. But Daniel’s point is compelling: creators can attend to making the program either entertaining OR completely realistic…and the latter would require so much dull and time-consuming plot fiddling that it’d lose the entertainingness.

Consider: we only complain about plot holes in shows we care about! The fact that we care enough to complain illustrates that the show’s entertaining! We wouldn’t, after all, try to pick apart plot holes in dull (but more logically seamless) shows.

My instinct is to whine about plot holes, too. But I’m starting to think it’s like being a message board spelling Nazi. Just because you spot the error doesn’t mean there’s outrageous incompetence.

The show runners certainly understand the license they’re taking with wig glue and the parenting issues. With the latter, they’ve even taken steps to (somewhat) cover their tracks. But, hey, it’s a great show!

By: Kmarko

04.28.2013 @ 1:37 PM

@Bigmac

Why was it silly? Girls play guitar.

By: hippipdip

04.28.2013 @ 5:10 PM

Phillip as Clark has been one of the more effective disguises, and I think it’s because it’s one of the very few instances where his mannerisms and speech patterns change rather than just plopping a wig and fake mustache on top of his head.

Also, I just realized after watching episode 12 that Phillip as Clark has the mannerisms of one Austin Pendleton in his one off role on The West Wing as FEC regulator Barry Haskel.

By: Athabasca

04.30.2013 @ 4:12 PM

I love this show, and some of the creepier elements, like Stan — Noah Emmerich has a weird way of smacking his lips as he talks that just makes my skin crawl — are in perfect balance against the roles they are playing. I feel bad for Nina now, as she was so fond of, or close with Vlad. So it goes…kind of a Breaking Bad misplaced sympathy thing.

I have only one quibble, and that is, how the he** do Philip and Elizabeth stay out so late, or so long, for days it seems, without realizing THEY HAVE CHILDREN??? Just a question.

By: Jimmbo

04.30.2013 @ 11:25 PM

The lip smacking works for me, but I feel like he’s going to the eye blink tic just a bit too often.

Or maybe it’s just that the eye blink tic takes are the ones making it into final cut (i.e. the show runners are really into it and making it their choice).